Thanks to AnimalMuppet and thanks for confirming that this is what you meant. I understand what you are saying, and it's a good point for the current case, for

Thanks to AnimalMuppet and thanks for confirming that this is what you meant. I understand what you are saying, and it's a good point for the current case, for a discussion with the general (non-techie) public. I'll keep that in mind. Quoting AnimalMuppet: >If you remove the last part ... then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. OK, that is precisely why I did NOT remove the last part, and it's precisely why the last part is important. The part about other jurisdictions having (sometimes) laws we might not all approve of. So, what I think I'm getting from you (you two) is that most people will just snip that last part off in their minds, and they'll be left with something they would never agree with. OK, fair enough, and thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes I think the general public wonders what the hell Apple's problem is, and why would they place SUCH a high value on (what is perceived as simply) privacy. My point about other jurisdictions is also just my own speculation on what kind of issues Apple is thinking about, in addition to the fundamental insecurity of effectively having a back door. It may not be a large part of their thinking, or maybe it is, I can see it both ways... On the one hand Tim is a corporate man, and on the other hand he's also running a company that goes out on limbs for corporate [edit: and social] responsibility.